Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Yet another example of how the two parties exchange scripts depending on who is in control of Congress and the White House. When the other party is in charge, the minority party does whatever it can to gum up the works and prevent them from achieving their agenda; when that minority party becomes the majority party, they are outraged -- outraged -- by the behavior of their opponents in trying to stop their agenda. And vice versa, of course.
ThinkProgress documents this phenomenon with Sen. Judd Gregg, who was beside himself about how those evil Democrats were obstructing the Republican agenda with filibusters and procedural motions - you know, like Gregg and the Republicans are doing right now to the Democrats. Here's Gregg in 2006, when Republicans controlled the Senate:
Obstruction has become the only thing which the other side of the aisle appears to be able to do, obstruction for the purpose of obstruction for the purpose of obtaining power around here.
And here's a memo Gregg wrote to his fellow Senators spelling out all the various procedural tricks they can use to delay and obstruct the passage of the health care reform bill. It includes things like hard quorum calls, which he describes:
Senate operates on a presumptive quorum of 51 senators and quorum calls are routinely dispensed with by unanimous consent. If UC is not granted to dispose of a routine quorum call, then the roll must continue to be called. If a quorum is not present, the only motions the leadership may make are to adjourn, to recess under a previous order, or time-consuming motions to establish a quorum that include requesting, requiring, and then arresting Senators to compel their presence in the Senate chamber.
This is exactly like what the Republicans in the House did during debate on the healthcare bill, suddenly objecting to routine unanimous consent requests that are never denied. There is no possible purpose to this other than to delay things. And if another senator objected to their routine unanimous consent requests, they would be furious about it.
Here's another:
Senate Points of Order - A Senator may make a point of order at any point he or she believes that a Senate procedure is being violated, with or without cause. After the presiding officer rules, any Senator who disagrees with such ruling may appeal the ruling of the chair--that appeal is fully debatable. Some points of order, such as those raised on Constitutional grounds, are not ruled on by the presiding officer and the question is put to the Senate, then the point of order itself is fully debatable. The Senate may dispose of a point of order or an appeal by tabling it; however, delay is created by the two roll call votes in connection with each tabling motion (motion to table and motion to reconsider that vote).
Pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.
Politics
Comments
Merely my humble opinion, i.e., backed with no empirical data . . .
I think the Republicans are misreading the polls on health care reform. I think the American people want competent health insurance reform. The polls showing some disapproval seem to be construed as rejection of such, instead I think it's both rejection of such but also disapproval from the Left that current reform efforts are insufficient.
My not at all humble opinion:
I have not heard, nor do I think there exists, a good argument we don't need fundamental reform on how we finance health care. The strategically prudent thing for the Republicans to do was to claim upfront they would support health insurance reform, but would expect some strategic reforms of their own where the Democratic plan is weak.
First-off, we know, know, that successful health insurance reform will reduce revenues to both practioners and providers like hospitals. This has been independently validated by other countries regarding how they lowered the rate of increase or lowered their health care costs. This is the major factor in reducing costs (after filtering out demographic changes). Republicans, and Congress for that matter, would be smart to protect practioners' profits by reducing their operating costs given their expected loss in revenues. Some examples:
1) Create an industry standard for handling invoices and payments. Other industries have done this voluntarily. It would cut administrative costs in collecting payments.
2) Work not for tort reform, but malpractice reform in order to cut practioners exboritant malpractice insurance premiums while simultaneously reducing operating costs and increasing health care outcomes.
3) Demand taxes be spread across all Americans so we all have some skin in the game, not just taxing 'Cadillac' plans or businesses who are increasingly having to compete with foreign companies whose health-care costs are not a business burden. This could be in the form of a VAT or a progressive employee withholding tax. Economists are increasingly discovering that disproportionate increases taxes on the rich leads to their having disproportionate power and an increase in income disparity - the opposite of why we all support progressive taxation*.
There are other items the Right could offer that would enhance the current proposed legislation, but the Republicans are neither a serious party nor do they appear to be thinking about elections beyond 2010 or 2012 nor do they appear to be even interested in governing. The net effect on the Democrats not having a worthy opponent keeping them focused on optimal policy intiatives is their own worst attributes come out, provincialism, opportunism, revenge(Lieberman), dependence on their own campaign financiers, etc.
*Just like extravagantly punitive taxation rates will increase tax revenues when cut but not when taxes are not punitive, it seems that radically progressive taxes also mutates intended results.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 7, 2009 9:57 AM
Exactly. Now Obama is channeling Bush when it comes to war.
Posted by: Juice | December 7, 2009 10:42 AM
I think someone on Fark.com posted a graph that put the problem in perspective: Cloture motions and votes have been relatively steady since the 80s, but then they jumped WAY up after the Democrats took Congress in 2006.
Saying they are exchanging scripts ignores the zeal in which they embrace their characters. The Democrats are either spineless or of greater belief in allowing the process to move along. The Republicans are either hard-nosed or unethical scumbags who will do anything short of calling in bomb threats to stop the process if they don't like it.
Posted by: FishyFred | December 7, 2009 10:46 AM
Heath: I don't know about Lieberman being a revenge thing. It seemed to me more like the progressive wing of the Dems trying to remove what they saw as an obstruction to their agenda from a securely Dem seat and the democratic leadership not knowing what to do about it. I suppose one could argue that Dean, as the titular head of the progressive dems, was behind it somehow, but it really seemed to me to be an example of the progressives becoming more assertive, not of party vengeance. And didn't the national party come to support him in the end anyway? It's been awhile so I'm not sure about it, but I remember them doing so.
Mostly I agree with you though, particularly regarding how the current health care plan is supposed to be funded. One of the odd results of heavily taxing "Cadillac plans", one not often discussed, is that this funding scheme will hit government employees particularly hard. One of the benefits of government employ has always been a superior benefits package, something meant to cover for the inferior pay, typically. Under the new scheme being proposed, these incredibly good government employee plans would be taxed as being "too good" so as to pay for, what exactly? Vouchers for sub-par plans? Insurance exchanges? Its not really very clear what they intend at this moment. It seems absurd to me that my local metro bus drivers, who get paid only a little more than minimum wage but have excellent health benefits, will be having their employer-provided health insurance heavily taxed, forcing their employer to choose between either replacing it with a plan that provides less coverage, or reducing their pay, or dropping their health insurance plan all together to avoid the increase in costs and maintain his yearly allocated budget. I sometimes wonder if it's paranoid of me to think that disenfranchising public employees is part of the motivation for such a funding scheme to begin with.
Posted by: Julian | December 7, 2009 11:49 AM
@Michael Heath: The problem with getting the Republicans on board and making some sensible conservative reform proposals is that there is no currently nothing for them to gain, politically, from beig constructive. Recent polling shows that the Democrats are demoralized by the lack of progress on the health reform legislation, and that they are placing the blame squarely on the Democratic Senate -- ref: Harry Reed's numbers amongst Democrats compared with Pelosi's.
Thus obstructionism is the correct political ploy for the Republicans at the moment since after the voters gave the Democrats the overwhelming majority they were seeking, any blame for delay and failure to legislate will fall squarely on the majority party (which, I think, it should, the arcane and ridiculous rules of the Senate notwithstanding.)
Posted by: tacitus | December 7, 2009 12:09 PM
tacitus @ 5:
I disagree long-term. I think their current positions will be haunting them for generations, which was my point and why I noted in my earlier comment:
I'm perfectly cognizant that mainstream media pundits are accurately reporting that the Republicans are depending on Democratic failures to help them electorally in 2010 and 2012. My point was more strategic, that this effort by them is a gigantic strategic mistake. I don't think the Republicans causing the Democrats to fail will help them in the long-haul. I think most people will not forget Republican incompetence 2001 - 2008 and therefore will not unconsciously vote for the GOP merely because the Dems fail. I understand this is contra to the current meme, but that was my whole point, i.e., the current approach might be helpful in gaining some tactical electoral victories in the next two Congressional elections, but they won't equate to strategic advantages for the Republicans, in fact I think it seals their doom since any power they do take will just validate their platforms are recipes for failure.
The past performance and current state of the Republican party does not argue for same-ol', same-ol' like they are depending on; both voter demographics and the depths of their noticeable failures will not translate into long-term electoral victories merely by causing the Dems to fail. Instead they need some successful governers and an opposition party which supports effective reforms in areas where the public firmly acknowledges reform is imperative, e.g., health insurance, entitlements, a modern regulatory environment in the financial sector, and absolutely no momentous trend on the horizon to create marginally significant job growth, which could come coupled to energy reform if they stopped being denialists (if you look at past deep recessions/depressions, there was always a big game-changer that helped the recovery, not mere gov't intervention).
The GOP would be better off helping the Dems get health care and then pointing to this legislative success (which won't have any noticeable effects until after 2012), while pointing out Dem failures in other areas (the jobless recovery I predict will occur given we have no game-changer to reverse long-term job trends).
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 7, 2009 12:35 PM
Hey Ed, did you ever come up with a clever name for this phenomenon? I suggest calling it "Political Freaky Friday" or "Freaky Friday Politics". FF is the story in which the mother and daughter switch minds and eventually start to act the part of the other one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freaky_Friday
The only catch is that in the story, the mother and daughter eventually see each other's point of view, and there is reconciliation. In politics, not so much.
Posted by: Herb | December 7, 2009 12:46 PM
Actually the Freaky Friday thing works better if you just consider what everyone else sees at the moment of the switch -- we all observe that the two parties have just traded talking points, like 2 bodies that have just traded minds. I was also considering how each one starts to adapt after the switch, but that is taking the metaphor too far I think.
Posted by: Herb | December 7, 2009 1:54 PM
@Michael Heath: It probably depends on how you're defining "better off". The tea party crowd would go apeshit if the Republicans cooperated with reform. Once their base ran away, they'd be forced to court moderates. While it would be good for the country, neither party really thinks about that anymore. To the average person in both parties politics is pretty much football. They don't give a shit what their team does or who it hurts, as long as they win. It doesn't even matter if their team agrees with them anymore. The win is what counts.
Posted by: JThompson | December 7, 2009 8:24 PM
Ed, I'd offer that the problem is not simply hypocrisy (tho there is some of that) but the way the rules of the game are set up. That is, even if I wanted to be bipartisan (whatever that means) and believed in meaningful legislation (whatever the issue might be) I can't do it.
The US Senate and Congress are set up as "Winner take all" systems. That means there is no gain for me to not take a rejectionist position on many issues.
For instance: much of the American public supports health care reform, and a clear plurality (if not majority) have come out i favor of universal care (as distinct from coverage) and even single-payer plans (this will differ of course depending o how you word the question and what you are proposing). But if I am a GOP rep or Senator from a district that is heavily Republican as well, in which the people who don't think current reform goes far enough will vote against me anyway, working with the Dems on anything is a loser for me. The mirror image hold true on the Democratic side (just reverse the situation I gave there).
Also, the Senate and the House amendment process, committee assignments -- all that stuff is predicated on the behavior you outlined. So the problem really is the structure itself and not the individual proclivities of the people in it.
@Michael Heath -- The problem with your set of proposals is that the Right has said essentially that they want to subsidize the insurance industry. There is not a real "left" in the US -- the most liberal Dems in the group would be moderate Conservatives in England, for instance. Half the GOP would be BNP in London.
I'd also disagree on progressive taxation. The US had a 90% tax rate for a while, and until we abandoned it in the 70s the wealth distribution was much more even. And with all that the employment and growth numbers stayed pretty good. Taxation by itself, to me, doesn't seem to have the effect economists think it does, largely because they assume you would take a pay cut to avoid taxes. Nobody I have ever met would do that no matter what the tax rate.
It seems to me the simpler thing is to just treat income as income no matter what it is, and quit giving preferential treatment to income that only wealthy people are likely to have (such as dividends. If I inherit $100m in stocks from daddy and do nothing but collect divs I am taxed at 15%. If I work I am taxed at much higher rates).
One of the issues with malpractice is that people want good outcomes. Did you know that an OB is responsible for the children s/he delivers -- until they are 21. If anything is traced to a birth injury, the OB is on the hook. For 21 years. That's insane.
Posted by: Jesse | December 8, 2009 10:48 AM
Taking it one level further, the places you see things like this reported change with who's in power as well. I don't imagine ThinkProgress will be talking about this sort of hypocrisy once the Republicans regain power.
@Michael Heath: "I think the Republicans are misreading the polls on health care reform."
I think both major parties are misreading it. The Democrats are seeing support for public health care drop from 70% in favor to more than 50% against in less than one year and bizarrely suggest that the numbers will improve if they actually manage to pass their abomination of a health-insurance pork-barrel. The Republicans look at the same data and conclude that Obama isn't an American citizen.
Posted by: Miko | December 8, 2009 11:52 PM